Talk:MIM-104 Patriot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Patriot Success Rate[edit]

A brief explanation of the differing "success rates" of the system The outgoing to incoming missile count is not 1 to 1. If your job is to defend an area against a threat (aircraft or missile) you’re not just going to fire one shot. At the speeds that missiles travel if the first misses you may not get a second chance. During the war an average of 4 patriots were fired at every scud. Even if every scud is destroyed, a 100% kill rate, the accuracy is only 25%. In addition the patriots used in the first gulf were proximity devices (go up next to the target and explode). Sometimes the scud warhead would survive and fall into populated or troop areas. Concerned at the threat of chemical or bio agents additional missiles were fired at the falling warhead (a much smaller radar target) this additionally lowers the accuracy. --Mitrebox 23:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If you fire four Patriots, and the first one kills the Scud so the other 3 have nothing to do, I consider that 100% accuracy and 300% overkill. But if the first 3 miss and the 4th finally takes out the Scud, then yes, you're down to a 25% accuracy figure. -- 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the same program as above. I am confused about the accuracy terms used in this article. To me, accuracy should refer to the chance of a single patriot missile intercepting a single target, not a pure calculation of missiles fired to scuds intercepted. The number of scuds fired in total is irrelevant to any discussion (as far as I can tell). So really there are three metrics (one of which is irrelevant).
1) Success rate.
2) Accuracy per missile (success if there is success to be had)
3) Accuracy as a simple function of missiles fired to targets intercepted

For example, if the standard procedure was to fire 4 missiles at a target, and they destroyed 97% of the targets (per the article) the accuracy of each missile had to be 58.4% (.416^4 = 0.03) (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested improvements[edit]

Standardise on the use of scud, Scud or SCUD. The report on the Dhuran error I just read used "Scud".

As well as correcting typos (many of which I introduced last edit!)... I've converted all the scud/SCUD to Scud. I'm not sure whether Scud or SCUD is correct, but at least it's consistent now. Motor 12:03, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Section: Psychological effects of the system This small section seems very weak.

Section: Usage during the 2003 invasion of Iraq The words "it was claimed" are not very clear about who made this claim

Section: Patriot upgrades

As of 2002, Israel currently uses the Patriot as part of a two-tier anti-ballistic missile defense system, with the Arrow missile in the role of high-altitude interceptor and the Patriot for point defense. Patriots are deployed around Israel's nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons assembly point at Dimona.

Is this still true? Motor 17:28, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Section The Patriot Guided Missile "There are a total of eight different variants of Patriot missiles: Standard, ASOJ/SOJC, PAC-2, PAC-2 GEM, GEM/C, GEM/T (or GEM+), and PAC-3" There's a ninth variant called the Analog, which preceded the Digital missile. Both are commonly referred to as Standard. The Analog missile has only been in the US inventory, but is no longer in use. The Digital missile is still in use outside of the US. The PAC-2 is usually referred to as ATM (anti tactical missile) and the PAC-2 GEM just as GEM.--jirnsum 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


acronym or backronym? Ojw 15:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Formerly a member of the guards only PATRIOT unit (1-203rd ADA) I could find no defeiniton of the PATRIOT even though the caps suggested it as an acronym. Now that the unit has "transitioned" I found some documents made by the contractor, raytheon, naming it the Phased Array, Rapid Interception Of Target. That still doesn't answer the question however. --mitrebox 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because the Raytheon document is incorrect. The correct acronym reads: Phased Array Tracking Radar Intercept On Target which is basically a description of how the missile is guided into the target--User: jirnsumjirnsum

I am originally from Huntsville and spent much time at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center which has a PATRIOT missile on display. I know several people who worked there, and sold workstations to defense contractors and army while in college. My understanding gathered from that culture has been that the name is an expansion of "Phased Array Tracking by Radar to Interception Of Target" which seems to make more sense than the above explanations since it accounts for all the letters in the acronym and coherently explains how the thing works. I cannot provide a citation since I learned that more than a decade ago, and today's Google search for exactly that text turns up only an old copy of this article. -- ke4roh (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of attacking israel[edit]

If Israel counter-attacked I don't think saddam thought it would cause the arab members of the coalition to suddenly switch side and ally with Iraq, I think he just wanted them to withdraw which would cause the allies to lose crucial support.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 11:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

good point Historian932 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

PATRIOT will not be replaced by MEADS[edit]

As of Nov 05, the plan is that both will operate on the same battlefield along with THAAD until at least 2030, or until we get lasers or something like that. MEADS is not designed to replace PATRIOT, especially in a tactical sense.

A.R. 12:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that MEADS and PATRIOT will work together, but isn't the THAAD Project dead?--BohicaTwentyTwo 17:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not. As of Jan 05 THAAD is scheduled for delivery to the Army sometime in 2009. In Feb 05 there is a THAAD live fire scheduled at WSMR. Also, who is under the impression that the Silkworm incident was a friendly SAM? No analysis of the incident, classified or not, has ever come to that conclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duckhunter6424 (talkcontribs) .

Usage during Operation "Iraqi Freedom" of 2003[edit]

This section is not appropriately sourced. I deleted a sentence claiming the missile was a "tremendous success" in the most recent war. This depends on ones perspective, and lacked any sourcing. Given prior lies and exagerations told about this weapon by Raytheon and other governmental officials, claims about this should be sourced. Whitfield Larrabee 04:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The lack of sourcing on this section suggests original research by this editor. I am going to place the lable {{original research}} on this section if it remains this way because it appears to be simply the opinions of the editor.--Whitfield Larrabee 04:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This report, in fact, uses the phrase "substantial success". It was not difficult to find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duckhunter6424 (talkcontribs) .

I added a reference for PAC-3 success during OIF. I agree a source was needed. I also agree if the source doesn't say "tremendous success", that should be removed. In fact any word like "tremendous", "fantastic", "horrible", are generally questionable and not encyclopedic in tone. From that standpoint alone the word was questionable.
However, note we are not cynical, suspicious investigative reporters. Encyclopedias don't emphasize "Crossfire"-style pro/con positions within the article. Our primary task is simply describing the stated topic. Doing so does not equate to taking a pro or con position on that. E.g, describing in detail evolution or abortion does not constitute taking a position on the issues. We can get ideas for appropriate tone and wording by comparing the tone and content in other encyclopedias for similar material. They don't devote large amounts of space to "some say this, but others say that". They primarily describe the stated topic, and accept official sources of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so our overall approach should be similar. Joema 21:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"fratricide," in U.S. usage generally refers to the destruction of one weapon by another (i.e. an incoming RV is destroyed by a previous nuclear detonation). Perhaps the "fratricide" references should be changed to "friendly fire incident" or something of the like.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeryz (talkcontribs) .

I've never heard that definition before, US or otherwise. Fratricide refers to blue-on-blue / friendly fire incidents. wiktionary:fratricide calls it The killing of one's brother (or sister). I'd like to hear who is calling fratricide by that definition, it certainly can't be the US military. See also:Fratricide: Can It Be Stopped? and FRATRICIDE: REDUCING SELF-INFLICTED LOSSES, both are US Military docs republished on and both use fratricide to refer to "friendly-fire". --Dual Freq 22:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The human blue-on-blue definition seems the most common, therefore usage in the article seems appropriate. Less commonly in strategic warefare, fratricide can also refer to mutual self-destruction of one side's munitions, esp regarding nuclear warheads. One MX missile basing scheme (dense pack) was designed around this:

"Upgrade" section redone[edit]

I completely redid the "upgrade" section. It is correct now. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duckhunter6424 (talkcontribs) .

Thanks so much for your knowledgeable, detailed contributions. It is greatly appreciated. Joema 14:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Air Defender, Duckhunter? Perhaps we've served together? =) Dream reaper 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Made article much more thorough. Described system equipment in much greater detail and edited some incorrect information.[edit]

Whew, that took a while. This article is now factually correct, within the limits of security classifications. Also added plenty of additional information on the Patriot equipment and its engagement procedures.

I'm sure there are some typos and poor wordings in there, so have at it.

Duckhunter6424 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the time and effort. Wikipedia and all readers will benefit. If only all editors were equally focused on substantive contributions. Joema 03:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Uh...yeah. I don't even know where to start with that. Editing back to the way it was before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Uh ... yeah. Then given that NATO acknowledged that to be true since they've seen the S-300 systems of the Slovak Army perhaps you should not have started and left it the way it was.

And while on the topic I find it interesting that you epigons of NPOV have this sentence

This gives the radar an unmatched ability to detect small, fast targets like ballistic missiles, or low radar cross section targets such as stealth aircraft or cruise missiles.

Meanwhile there is revert war on the S-400 page where the same claim is made. The reasoning given there for removing it is that the S-400 has not intercepted any stealth aircraft. Care to list the stealth aircraft intercepted by this system? I don't care whether the claim stays or goes on both entries, but there should be consistency. kovesp (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired of seeing this stupidity and usa bias on wikipedia. If you don't accept the claim that S-400 can shoot stealth aircraft (which is true because even the pentagon and several unbiased sources also claim it) then you have to reedit all the military articles because simply most systems were never used. Starting by this patriot article since it never shoot any aircraft. Care to make a list of non stealth aircraft intercepted by the patriot system? 0? remove it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Most expensive interceptor statement[edit]

I removed this statement for two reasons: (1) cannot possibly be true (2) citation needed to corroborate: "(and the most expensive, at over $3 million each - including develpoment costs- or a missile unit cost of approximately 1.5 milion)"

It's virtually certain the Nike Sprint and Spartan missiles were much more expensive than Patriot, esp if including development costs. The currently operational US National Missile Defense GMD missiles are more expensive without a doubt. Re current Tactical ballistic missile interceptors, I think the Navy SM-3 costs over $3 million each. Joema 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

PATRIOT vs. Patriot[edit]

At what point should we use "PATRIOT" and at what should we use "Patriot"? --Kitabparast 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

While we Air Defenders did once say that the name of our missile was an acronym, it is officially not an acronym any more. In our official correspondence, we have now reverted to Patriot, rather than all caps. 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Army, we use "PATRIOT" - NEVER "Patriot." PATRIOT is indeed an acronym (actually a "bacronym"--i.e., it was not an acronym when the name was first developed but has since been retrofitted with a meaning). Every document that deals with PATRIOT has the system name in all caps. This is the correct way to write the name.

--WhitneyGH 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Got the SA-6 info right of the cited reference, what' the problem, and why didn't you fix it instead of reverting it?? Isn't the point that the SA-6 is a lot more mobile?? --matador300 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make the change in question, but isn't the SA-6 more comparable to Hawk than Patriot? Wouldn't it be better to compare it with a similar system than with an older system? It might be like comparing the weight of an M1 with the weight of a T-62. Just a thought, no need to mix apples and oranges and confuse people who might not know the difference. --Dual Freq 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why anything on the SA-6 needs to be in the article. It is simply not in any way similar to Patriot. Perhaps if someone wants to post the march order/emplacement data for the S-300/400, that would be relevant, but the comparison to the SA-6 is pointless and confusing, not to mention poorly written.--Duckhunter6424 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
To post a contrary opinion, while Patriot is of course far more advanced and capable, if one looks at it from the battery layout, the SA-6 is actually as similar as a Russian missile battery gets to Patriot - a bunch of TELs controlled by a single battery-level radar which handles search and targetting. It lacks the separate ECS, but neither do most other Russian mobile missiles (very early S-300s do have a 5N63S separate vehicle which was soon integrated).
It is arguably at least as similar as the S-300 battery, which is supposed to link up to higher level radars (30N6 Flap Lids are highly biased towards FC, and the search modes available in the later models are narrow sector and relatively slow to scan). Or the Buk (SA-11) or S-300V (SA-12), which have more search oriented radars but they have to link up to FC illuminators. And of course the short range, fully integrated TELARs like the SA-8 or SA-15 are even further away. Thus for Deployment Time, the SA-6 is arguably a good system for fair comparison.
BTW, fair comparison or not, except for the very early S-300P and PT variants (30 minutes), all report substantially faster times. Fully mobile SA-10s claim 5 minutes to readiness unless you want to lift the radars onto masts, as do SA-11s and SA-12s and the SA-8s. The SA-15s can shoot on the short halt.
All of them also have better tactical mobility. The SA-10s are on all wheel drive vehicles. The -11s, 12s and 15s are all tracked. The -8 is wheeled but can swim. Patriot tends to be on trailers.
Of course, many argue that comparisons are a bad idea in encylopedias due to the difficulty in gaining a fair, nonmisleading comparison (a viewpoint I do not really agree with). However, if a mobility comparison is made, there is IMHO no reason to exclude the SA-6 from the list of candidates. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Countries that have Patriot in use[edit]

there seems to be some confusion about whether or not South Korea uses the PATRIOT Missile. At the moment, they do not. They are negotiating buying PAC-3 missiles from the US, but the do not have the system in use right now. According to Duckhunter6424 "South Korea has operated Patriot for many years. They are currently negotiating for PAC-3 systems (or more PAC-2 interceptors, one or the othe).". Look [here] for a short article on their efforts to procure the system. The [Raytheon product page] doesn't list Spain as a customer, but this is probably because they've only entered the program last year. jirnsum 18:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Future[edit]

Replaced: Missile Section Enhancement with Missile Segment Enhancement, which is the correct name source

Deleted the line "The upgrade is similar to the GEM+T/C upgrade, in that it consists of a body redesign and subsequent replacement of the PAC-3 interceptor. " The GEM+T/C upgrade is completely different than the MSE upgrade. The next line of the article even illustrates this: "The upgrade includes a new fin design and a new, more powerful rocket motor". The GEM+T/C upgrade involves upgrading of the forebody internal systems, not the rocket motor, nor the aerodynamic controls. Also I doubt the MSE will replace the Baseline and CRI missiles in the stockpile: they will be added to them. jirnsum 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... range?[edit]

What's the range of the Patriot? I think it's kind of an important bit of information. Tullie 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: 70km for the early variants, somewhere over that for PAC-2 (but <150-160) and about ~15km for PAC-3 are the most commonly cited. Long answer to follow. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is in fact very important, which is why it is classified. Also, there really isn't a standardized "maximum range", as the range will vary considerably based on the target in question. Duckhunter6424 14:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Duckhunter is entirely correct. It's possible to intercept a slow loitering airplane at very long range, while a very fast manoeuvring target van be a challenge at short range already. 08:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a target that's closing at a moderate speed (relative to the maximum engagement speed of the system in question) will be threatened at a larger range compared to a loitering aircraft - the closure rate allows the missile to fly a shorter distance. You are otherwise correct in saying target range is variable, but I think it won't hurt to include the brochure ranges with the understanding that they are such. At least the situation isn't as bad as with a AAM, in which the range depends on the target and your own speed, aspect and altitude. Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Maximum Range" also depends on many other factors. Altitude of Launcher, altitude of target, speed of target, and many other factors have to be taken into consideration when figuring range. And each missile in common inventory (PAC-2, PAC-3) have to be considered. Range can vary widely, just like the MPG estimate of a car. 04:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a little odd the differences in range between PAC 2 and PAC 3 - from ~150 km to ~15 km. Is there any official site that can confirm this? Tt100 16:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the minimum range at which the Patriot can intercept a target? Lklundin (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


If AESA technology is already available, it does not make sense for the system to use an outdated passive electronically scanned array.--Arado 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

AESA is a fairly new technology, and the Patriot system isn't. Unless they have spent the money to upgrade it, why would it being using the newer tech? --OuroborosCobra 22:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
One thing about the military, they are fairly conservative when it comes to upgrading it's equipment. With the large number of PATRIOT systems already employed, it would be a huge budget strain to upgrade all of the RADAR systems. Not only do you have to figure the cost of the RADAR itself, but the cost to re-program the missiles, change hardware on the individual missiles themselves, and retrain the 14E (PATRIOT Missile Radar Operators). The Operator course itself is almost a year long all by itself. The PAC-3 was first tested in 1994, but because of cost it is employed in less then half of the PATRIOT batteries. 05:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

References in Pop Culture[edit]

Could the "Patriot Arrow" in Robin Hood: Men in Tights be a valid point to put on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardkselby (talkcontribs) 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Then how would people know about the Patriot Arrow? Richardkselby (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

They could watch the movie. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How would someone know to watch Men in tights to hear about the Patriot arrow if they have never heard of the joke in the first place. (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If they haven't watched to movie, I doubt they are going to look up here to see whether it was a reference or not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

But if they look up something for the Patriot missile, and they find out the fact about the Patriot arrow, then one will be more encouraged to watch the movie to find the joke. (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not IMDB; go there for this kind of crap. Someone looking at an article for a military Surface-to-Air missile system is not expecting nor should they expect references to some irrelevant comedy. Come on now people. (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to find a picture of the Patriot Arrow from Robin Hood: Men in Tights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A Patriot "battery"[edit]

In 2001 Taiwan was offered 6 PAC-3 batteries - how many launch stations would that be per battery? What I'm talking about when I say "launch station" is the quad-launcher carried on the back of every trailer, such as you can see in the first three pictures on the article. John Smith's (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually between 6 and 8. I'm not aware of the details of this particular contract, however. Duckhunter6424 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In the US, a PAC-3 battery is 6 launchers, but it is up to the service. The ECS can support more. Lyta79 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

PATRIOT System in popular culture.[edit]

Should not be a section of the article about PATRIOT in popular culture? Since the the Gulf War the PATRIOT has risen as one of the most heard of air-defence system and appears in many movies and video games often with mythical proportions of their performance or reliability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Look two conversations up. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
But, it might be worth adding a more general "... in pop culture" paragraph to a different article, for we have an entire "Military planes in pop culture" article. I'd opt for either "Air defense in pop culture", "Missile weapons in pop culture", or (my favored choice) "SAMs in pop culture". These could clear up some clichès as well, for example the misconception that SAMs would be impact-triggered. Some movies, for example a James Bond movie, contain scenes of that kind.
OTOH, the "PATRIOT in pop culture" is definitely too narrow a topic to deserve its paragraph here. Just my opinion.
OTOH^2,'s reply above ("We're not IMDB") is a bit on the strong side, and lacks some logic. We're not Jane's either, yet we provide info about military hardware.
Feel free to comment on my talk page if the topic's still on. User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PAC-3 "warhead" confusion.[edit]

Contrary to the misinformation provided by a number of internet warriors, the PAC-3 interceptor does in fact have a warhead. It is referred to as a "lethality enhancer", and it is a pseduo-proximity fused device (meaning it detonates based off of calculations from the active seeker) that is used only in anti-aircraft engagements. In ballistic missile engagements, the interceptor is of course hit to kill, and the LE is not necessary. Duckhunter6424 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the PAC-3 missile appears to have a warhead. However, it's not a conventional continuous-rod warhead from the air-to-air missiles but rather a directional warhead which disperses a dense cloud of low-speed fragments towards the target and letting the target collide with these fragments (it's a high energy impact as the relative closure is very high). It makes the missile's cross-section physically larger to increase the kill probability if the hit-to-kill mechanism fails. The same principle is used in Israeli Arrow missiles. Zupi (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Something wrong with picture "A detailed view of an AN/MPQ-53"[edit]

If you look carefully at this photograph you will notice that the RADAR vehicle in the foreground is spliced with the missile unit in the background. I'm not entirely sure what is going on here.

US National Guard Patriot Units[edit]

I am looking for information on US Army National Guard PATRIOT units. Please add info here and on my talk page so I can update this article.(I'm active duty with a Patriot brigade) Lyta79 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

why you don't add Turkey which is on operations on Patriots —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Attempted patriot missile smuggling to south korea[edit]

Earlier today (21.12.2011) A cargo ship (Thor liberty) was impounded in Kotka harbor - Finland for containing 69 patriot missiles classified as "fireworks". These missiles were signed to a (yet unspecified) South Korean lieutenant colonel and were seized by the Finnish Defense Force. As this is more like a developing news story i don't think it has yet a place in the main article, but it would be good to mention it here on the talk page as south Korea is not on the list of patriot customers (except for 2nd hand) and the arms smuggling is highly suspicious activity on this scale. -- (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting and confusing story unfolding... according to the Chicago Tribune the shipment was enroute to China, not to South Korea. Which of course would be even more suspicious. But CBS is reporting that it was a legal shipment to South Korea, only the ship itself was scheduled to continue on to China after off-loading the missiles and explosives in South Korea, and that the only illegal aspect to this was that the cargo was not stowed properly and that it was not declared to Finnish authorities before entering Finnish waters.,0,2491465.story

TagFerret (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed Finland's confiscation of Patriot shipment from the article. The missiles have been released and the ship has left Finland after the missing armament shipping permission was granted. [3] [4] MKFI (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Patriot in Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003)[edit]

The end of this particular section (~last nine lines) is in dire need of a rewrite including spelling corrections and citations. There may also be some POV mixed in. --IcyEd (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What does MIM stand for?[edit]

What does MIM stand for? -- (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mobile Launched Interceptor Missile. I guess MLIM didnt sound so good, so they cut it to MIM. I got that from a list of US military acronyms. The MIM-23 Hawk had the MIM acronym too, so I assume it dates from the 50s. Irondome (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

US and European Patriot missiles in Turkey.[edit]

The missiles deployed for the Syrian crisis in Turkey are American, Dutch and German systems owned and operated by those armed forces. Merely being placed in another country does not that them an operator as well. I've checked both your sources, Raytheon and US government sources, none of which mention Turkey being an operator. PraetorianD 12:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PraetorianD (talkcontribs)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

an shoot down ballistic missiles with a flight range of up to 1,000 km[edit]

maybe you're right if you do not want to accept external sources.

but always depends on the distance of interception target speed))))))))))))) and there is nothing to think ......

Can shoot down ballistic missiles with a flight range of up to 1,000 km. pac-3 15km pac-3mse 22km — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of taking the bait, I don't understand what point you are trying to make. supposedly shows the flight envelope of S-300. What does that have to do with this article? --Dual Freq (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You are very good and very experienced moderator. Your claim is justified. In addition, your solution -> finish (you are moderator). On the scheme of this link. Not more, the circuit is not a part of the article. The site itself is a good source, the scheme provided to him from the state military trade company (Rosoboronexport). The maximum that I can ask to do this editing (text) from [Rosoboronexport] /]] of 1000, or even put this scheme in the * external link *. Reliability of figures is confirmed the connection between * launch range ballistic target * and * speed * such purpose. Although, in principle, possible variants (if strange architecture) for example is like a tank with 4 tracks. Can shoot down ballistic missiles with a flight range of up to 1,000 km. With sending to the source in English and producer reference (at the end of the text) The same scheme (1000) in an article on another site (it * less * than rbase) but is much broader in scope. (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahh ok I see now. Well at least the first link actually adresses Patriot, and in a detailed and sober fashion. The second link does not look good.. The point is, is rbase sufficiently RS? Irondome (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
You are fluent in English. Source directly has a web link -> *Federation of American Scientists* ->

You can check the source ??? Is there a figure in 1000 ??? For example here in the site, I could not find (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth trying to mention a specific range for potential target ballistic missiles. I don't believe that any source has a specific number and the 1,000 km number is likely just a rounded, non-specific estimate based on the standard definition of an SRBM. This article says it has a capability against tactical ballistic missiles, I think that's specific enough. Short-range ballistic missiles seem to be defined as less than 1,000 km range, so that is probably where these sites are less than 1,000 km. I don't think anyone has claimed a medium range ballistic missile capability for the PAC-3, so I don't see the point of putting a < 1,000 km number into this article and sourcing it with some random .ru websites. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It is your right (for RU sites). (Question) But then there should be a reference to the fact that such a * tactical ballistic missiles * similar * IRBM * (refinement) that is a wiki link [] / SRMB

+ (.....not so good English....)I can not find any source indicating a possible straight. Apart from RU, or talking about the source of external additions to the PAC-3 (for use other radar or missiles (to interception of targets more or less)) just as most systems (RUS origin) have the ability to complement each other through external command posts. (eg Tunguska / tor / shell can hit ballistic targets, but in fact it merely suggestive rocket through the outer post another system). I think you as a connoisseur of English necessary to look for such opportunities PAC-3 (such as PAC-3 + THAAD / PAC-2 + PAC-3). Since highly likely that such opportunities exist for PAC-3. and if so, the article loses much of its content (anti-ballistic capabilities). (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • little trap declares the interception ballistic missiles with a range of up to 3500 km for THAAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think you are saying that it should be mentioned that Patriot is part of a multi-layered missile defence system if words to that effect are not already in mainspace. That would provide a good source for including that short assertion, which has been mentioned in many sources. The U.S - I.D.F joint missile defence exercises, the largest in 2013 I think - drilled with Arrow (Israeli missile), Patriot, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System and THAAD, integrating all the systems successfully in simulated interceptions of various threats. It would seem that 5 countries have this multi-layered defence system in various stages of completion. Irondome (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

SCUDs re-entering atmosphere?[edit]

"the changes weakened the missile and made it unstable during flight, creating a tendency for the SCUD to break up upon re-entering the atmosphere". Since when SCUDs leave the atmosphere? They are tactical missiles. They don't go to outer space. This should be corrected. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

They are ballistic missiles. They reach an altitude of 150 km, above the Kármán line of 100 km. Whether their application is tactical or not, they reach space. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

New user Patriot[edit]


Does anyone have a reliable source, preferably in English, that indicates Morocco has Patriot? --Dual Freq (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Might not help but they dont appear here if you enter United States to Morocco. MilborneOne (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Also had a quick check through some other sources like or and no mention at all of Morocco. I would conclude that they have not got any. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MIM-104 Patriot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MIM-104 Patriot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Naming in ALLCAPS[edit]

While I understand Wikipedia's style guide, I don't understand why Wikipedia would encourage the incorrect use of what is basically a brand name. The developer of the product named it with all capital letters. Would a commercial brand name be similarly edited on Wikipedia to follow its style guide? If so, then that makes sense and is consistent. If not, then I question the differentiation. Mistress of Awesome (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The article uses the DoD designation. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it does not. Literally part of my job is ensuring the correct DoD nomenclature for DoD technical documentation on weapon systems. PATRIOT is the official U.S. Army designation for the system. I consider the Army to be the "developer" in my analogy above, not Raytheon. Raytheon was the designer and manufacturer. The Army named, paid for the development of, and owns the product.Mistress of Awesome (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Capitalisation of the name in technical manuals is just a style issue, this is an encyclopedia not a technical manual. Google (other search engines are available) indicate that Raytheon and DoD sources use "Patriot". MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong. Capitalization of the name in technical manuals is based on the actual engineering drawings and technical documentation of the system; it is not a "style issue." Google is not the authority on this subject, unless Google has the technical data supporting the system. In my opinion, an encyclopedia should accurately reflect the official name of a product, but perhaps my opinion is misguided. Mistress of Awesome (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Searching patriot missile on google indicates that the Army itself is inconsistent in capitalization. ADA sites seem to use all caps, but most Army media / publicity pages don't use all caps, for example this one. My 2 cents is that it's fine the way it is with the backronym issue discussed in the lead. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Army itself is inconsistent. That's mainly because people are lazy, "Patriot" is easier to type, and eventually such things become common usage. You will also see "Hawk" for "HAWK" and "Blackhawk" for "Black Hawk." I even sometimes see "Thaad" instead of "THAAD." ADA is the user of the system, which is why they generally follow the official designation. People who write media/publicity pages are not familiar with the actual equipment, and therefore they don't know any better. This is how the capitalization is in literature from the Army project office for the system: PATRIOT Provides the Only Combat-Proven Missile Defense System in the World. As you can see from the fact that the first instance of PATRIOT isn't spelled out, like all the other acronyms are, the Army itself realizes how silly the backronym is. It's of no consequence to me what decision is made for this article, but I do wonder about the logic behind it. Mistress of Awesome (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The US military uses all caps for a lot of words that aren't usually written that way in the civilian world. The Navy had a tendency to use all caps for ship names, but Wikipedia doesn't follow that style either. How the Army or Navy does things is their business, but Wikipedia's own style guide takes precedence here. The primary guidelines for this are found at WP:ALLCAPS and WP:TMRULES. If you have more questions after reading those pages, feel free to ask. - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
So the same rules are applied to trademark names, I see. Then that makes sense to me. Again, the capitalization of PATRIOT is like a brand name. It's not a "style guide" or just the military capitalizing something in their literature because they felt like it - it is the official name of the product. Don't get me wrong, I think all-caps brand names are a bad idea unless they're actual acronyms, but plenty of companies do the same. Since all-caps trademark names are not allowed on Wikipedia either, then the decision makes sense to me. While I personally don't see why an encyclopedia would want to inaccurately reflect something like product names, because that seems antithetical to the purpose of an encyclopedia (the fact that there are discussions on the capitalization of this and similar names shows that people are asking the questions and having a difficult time finding authoritative information for a solid answer), I do understand not wanting to fill up an article with capitalization with no acronym behind it. Maybe there could be a sentence saying that the Army considers "PATRIOT" the official name, but common usage is "Patriot," just to provide an answer to someone looking to Wikipedia with that question? Thank you for the information. Mistress of Awesome (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the article is OK we already mention the capitalised PATRIOT as an invented acronym. Also note this DoD style guide uses "Patriot" as well as the defintive DoD offical naming document DoD 4120 MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)